We have holiday plans (and limited internet access) that prevent me from attending your July 5th meeting so please share this email with your committee as "Public Comment" regarding the proposed tower.
It is my understanding that you all are expected to provide a committee recommendation to the Selectboard ahead of their July 11th. Based on my inbox and voicemail, I think it would be a mistake to interpret public turnout at 8am following a national holiday as lack of interest in this issue.
As best I can tell, the tower proposal before you was developed to address a technical coverage problem without fully appreciating the regulatory process a tower of this scale would face. Understandably, the tower proposal reflects the task given the consultant last year. I think it's fair to say we would be discussing a very different tower proposal had the consultant been asked to identify sites in town where a tower would
a) improve upon existing coverage (or even seek to achieve 100% coverage) while
b) complying with the presumptive height restrictions set out in our zoning regulations.
Based on quotations in the Valley News and what I've seen firsthand, I think Neil's made a decision to forge ahead with this specific proposal feeling it has a decent chance of surviving regulatory challenge. Given the odds, I assume he feels this route should be pursued before putting any more resources into investigating alternative sites/proposals.
As a public opponent to this specific proposal, I question the wisdom of this approach.
I doubt there was any way Neil could have anticipated the resistance this proposal has already elicited. However, now that it's clear there are serious questions being asked about the proposed tower, Neil, and consequently you all, need to make a calculated guess whether to bull forward in the hope this resistance can be overcome, or to slow down and try to accommodate those aspects of resistance that might lead to a better result long-term.
One risk of bulling forward is that the DRB and/or Act 250 District Commission ultimately require the town to provide consultant analysis of alternative sites where a tower just 20' above the tree line could provide equivalent or superior coverage to the proposed site. The financial cost of doing this analysis only after bulling forward would be compounded by the political cost to Tracy Hall of having guessed wrong at this juncture.
A second risk of bulling forward is that it hardens everyone's positions. The Town, acting through the Town Manager, this committee and the Selectboard, would be saying whatever window there might have been to rationally explore whether this is the best use of town resources to address the narrow-banding deadline has now closed. It's now all about the raw power of the ballot box, a late summer bond vote, and the lawyers opponents can bring to the regulatory process.
Finally, bulling forward risks perpetuating a basic, understandable, error made at the outset of this process.
Did anyone ever suggest to the consultant that any tower should be designed to stay within 20' of the surrounding tree line as expected under NZR 4.13(C)(b)?
There's a reason for this provision and it's not arbitrary.
The entire telecommunications section of our zoning regulations reflects a well-worn national effort to arrive at a balance between the need to improve wireless communications of all kinds and the negative impacts these towers impose. These model regulations try to influence tower design at the outset to site towers where they can achieve their coverage goals without literally towering over the landscape. While some may feel these impacts are unimportant in their own judgement, our zoning regulations clearly do not. And yet this tower proposal appears to have overlooked our zoning regulations from the beginning. While I sympathize with the sense of urgency regarding the year-end deadline, I find this selective disregard for applicable regulations surprising and disturbing.
It is my understanding that you all are expected to provide a committee recommendation to the Selectboard ahead of their July 11th. Based on my inbox and voicemail, I think it would be a mistake to interpret public turnout at 8am following a national holiday as lack of interest in this issue.
As best I can tell, the tower proposal before you was developed to address a technical coverage problem without fully appreciating the regulatory process a tower of this scale would face. Understandably, the tower proposal reflects the task given the consultant last year. I think it's fair to say we would be discussing a very different tower proposal had the consultant been asked to identify sites in town where a tower would
a) improve upon existing coverage (or even seek to achieve 100% coverage) while
b) complying with the presumptive height restrictions set out in our zoning regulations.
Based on quotations in the Valley News and what I've seen firsthand, I think Neil's made a decision to forge ahead with this specific proposal feeling it has a decent chance of surviving regulatory challenge. Given the odds, I assume he feels this route should be pursued before putting any more resources into investigating alternative sites/proposals.
As a public opponent to this specific proposal, I question the wisdom of this approach.
I doubt there was any way Neil could have anticipated the resistance this proposal has already elicited. However, now that it's clear there are serious questions being asked about the proposed tower, Neil, and consequently you all, need to make a calculated guess whether to bull forward in the hope this resistance can be overcome, or to slow down and try to accommodate those aspects of resistance that might lead to a better result long-term.
One risk of bulling forward is that the DRB and/or Act 250 District Commission ultimately require the town to provide consultant analysis of alternative sites where a tower just 20' above the tree line could provide equivalent or superior coverage to the proposed site. The financial cost of doing this analysis only after bulling forward would be compounded by the political cost to Tracy Hall of having guessed wrong at this juncture.
A second risk of bulling forward is that it hardens everyone's positions. The Town, acting through the Town Manager, this committee and the Selectboard, would be saying whatever window there might have been to rationally explore whether this is the best use of town resources to address the narrow-banding deadline has now closed. It's now all about the raw power of the ballot box, a late summer bond vote, and the lawyers opponents can bring to the regulatory process.
Finally, bulling forward risks perpetuating a basic, understandable, error made at the outset of this process.
Did anyone ever suggest to the consultant that any tower should be designed to stay within 20' of the surrounding tree line as expected under NZR 4.13(C)(b)?
There's a reason for this provision and it's not arbitrary.
The entire telecommunications section of our zoning regulations reflects a well-worn national effort to arrive at a balance between the need to improve wireless communications of all kinds and the negative impacts these towers impose. These model regulations try to influence tower design at the outset to site towers where they can achieve their coverage goals without literally towering over the landscape. While some may feel these impacts are unimportant in their own judgement, our zoning regulations clearly do not. And yet this tower proposal appears to have overlooked our zoning regulations from the beginning. While I sympathize with the sense of urgency regarding the year-end deadline, I find this selective disregard for applicable regulations surprising and disturbing.
No comments:
Post a Comment